My Proof of God: Is God A First Cause or Infinite Regress?

[r0ckyreed]

Is God a first cause or is God an infinite regress?

I would say that God is an infinite regress because God is infinity and is more fundamental than causation. God is the most fundamental aspect of existence. God isn’t the source of existence. God is existence because even a source of existence would have to exist so it is self-defeating to say that existence has a source but the source has no existence. If the source exists, then existence doesn’t really have a source since something already exists eternally. Existence exists and it cannot not exist. Consciousness or God is infinity, which is why it even is more fundamental than proof. Any attempts to understand God or trace the causes of God are going to result in an infinite regress because we are literally inside of an Infinite Mind. An infinite mind trying to grasp it’s own existence will spend an eternity imagining an infinite chain of causations.

A source implies linear time. But God is not an event of the past. God is the Present Moment, creating itself right now while imagining an infinite chain of causation, going back into an imaginary past.

 

Here’s my proof of God:

1. Existence exists
2. Existence cannot not exist
3. Existence has no external cause or source because that cause/source itself would have to have Existence. In essence, Existence is more fundamental than proof and causation because proof and causation require Existence in the first place.
4. Existence transcends all conceptualizations, models, and theories.
5. Thus, Existence is fundamental 
6. God refers to that which is most fundamental.
7. Therefore, God exists as the most fundamental aspect of Existence.

Give me feedback on my argument. 

Thanks!

Edited Thursday at 06:50 PM by r0ckyreed

[aurum]

16 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

1. Existence exists
2. Existence cannot not exist

Why?

Not saying you're wrong, but I don't see it clearly laid out in the proof. So this could be an area of improvement.

Why couldn't reality just be non-existence?

[r0ckyreed]

23 minutes ago, aurum said:

Why?

Not saying you're wrong, but I don't see it clearly laid out in the proof. So this could be an area of improvement.

Why couldn't reality just be non-existence?

Thanks for your feedback.

I would say that:

1. Existence exists. We cannot deny that existence exists. There are things happening. The fact of consciousness necessitates existence. Whether we are in the Matrix or in the “real world” implies the existence of a false world and a real world.

2. Nonexistence is impossible because nonexistence is a concept that doesn’t point to anything that exists. I would argue, how would you know if nonexistence exists? If nonexistence exists, then wouldn’t it entail existence in a way? Reality cannot be nonexistence due to the fact that we are talking about it right now. Our discussion about nonexistence proves existence. So existence is inevitable.

Edited Thursday at 07:24 PM by r0ckyreed

[Eskilon]

Existence is nonexistence, because it isn't happening anywhere. Everything must be nothing because it doesn't have anything outside of it.

It's turtles all the way down

Edited Thursday at 07:44 PM by Eskilon

[LastThursday]

1 hour ago, r0ckyreed said:

6. God refers to that which is most fundamental.
7. Therefore, God exists as the most fundamental aspect of Existence.

Six is just a definition, rather than a consequence of the argument, so seems redundant, but that's fine. Six would imply that God is exactly equal to Existence rather than being an aspect of Existence, since both Existence and God are both fundamental in exactly the same way. So this seems clearer:

7. Therefore God is Existence, Existence is God.

Is it possible however that there is a non-Existence defined as an absence in Existence? So that non-Existence doesn't in itself exist - other than as a concept? For example the hole in a doughnut doesn't exist outright (other than being a concept), but it exists only with reference to that which does exist (the body of the doughnut)? Is it possible for a thing that exists in one moment to absent itself from existence the next?

Edited Thursday at 08:10 PM by LastThursday

[Breakingthewall]

The cause of reality is the absence of limits, which is not something, therefore there is no cause. Reality is absolute potential, and includes existence and nonexistence. Nonexistence is that which is not illuminated by consciousness, even though it exists as potential. Reality is conscious and unconscious, immutable and in perpetual motion, one and multiple. The interesting thing is that you can reveal its absolute essence, its total power, since reality is you.

 

[Willie]

Perhaps it’s turtles all the way down and space kangaroos all the way back?

[Princess Arabia]

There is no proof that anything is really happening just as in a nightly dream. It feels real until you wake up, then it was revealed to never have happened. Maybe it's the same at physical death or you die before you die but there's something that has to know that too so I'm not sure about that concept. Also, Existence means to stand out and nothing stands out. We're trying to use logic to explain away Reality but it's beyond logic and all explanations because that's also reality. We are using words that we've assigned meanings to, but those words are also a part of this. 

What if everything is nothing. How can nothing be anything other than but only in appearance. The appearance has to also be nothing. It's nothing and something simultaneously. That's the best we can do because that's saying they are things and no things.

What if what appears is just seeming to appear as something but is actually nothing. The body doesn't live forever but you're seeing from that body and assessing everything from a body that dies. Even your idea that there's consciousness is coming from that perceived self and is coming from something that doesn't lasts forever. We all assume we live on forever because consciousness never dies but what if you're not really conscious but only appear to be. What if everything is actually dead but powered by this energy and this energy is all there is. What if this existence is just energy in form and the form isn't really real nor unreal. What if, what if, what if.......

Edited Thursday at 10:29 PM by Princess Arabia

[cetus]

2 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

There is no proof that anything is really happening just as in a nightly dream.

Nisargadatta quote: "There is no such thing as the experience of reality"

Makes most go Humm....Say what?

*Infinite imagination may be the best way to describe the experience of reality.

 

Edited Friday at 12:59 AM by cetus

[ExploringReality]

@Princess Arabia

What is appearances? What is nothing? What is knowledge? What is energy? How are they related? Are they truth or are they pointers towards that which is?

What if our beliefs and definitions of these terms are relative to our interpretation of these terms and what they come to mean for us. Is it possible to go beyond appearances to Absolute Truth? To say that all is appearance seems obvious, but what is the substance of appearance? If ts nothing, then what is nothing? Nothingness is like a womb of pure potentiality and actuality. Nothing is not our ideas of nothing. Anything the mind says that it is, it isn't. But what is this? These are great questions that are serious and profound. 

[Princess Arabia]

57 minutes ago, cetus said:

Nisargadatta quote: "There is no such thing as the experience of reality"

Makes most go Humm....Say what?

*Infinite imagination may be the best way to describe the experience of reality.

 

The person/individual/separate self/ is experience itself. It doesn't really exist as a separate individual so maybe that's what he meant.

[cetus]

@Princess Arabia They are not two. Self and other (reality) arise mutually.

 *Who or what said that?

 

Edited Friday at 02:08 AM by cetus

[Princess Arabia]

49 minutes ago, ExploringReality said:

@Princess Arabia

What is appearances? What is nothing? What is knowledge? What is energy? How are they related? Are they truth or are they pointers towards that which is?

What if our beliefs and definitions of these terms are relative to our interpretation of these terms and what they come to mean for us. Is it possible to go beyond appearances to Absolute Truth? To say that all is appearance seems obvious, but what is the substance of appearance? If ts nothing, then what is nothing? Nothingness is like a womb of pure potentiality and actuality. Nothing is not our ideas of nothing. Anything the mind says that it is, it isn't. But what is this? These are great questions that are serious and profound. 

Appearances is what appears. A dog, a cat, a tree, a body, a car, etc. Nothing is what's appearing as these things. It has to be nothing for something to appear as it. Infinity is O. Knowledge is what separation is. Without it one cannot make the distinction. When a toddler/child starts to know itself is when it starts the egoic process of being a somebody. An energy arises in the body that thinks it's a separate being. Energy cannot be described. It's everything and descriptive words would also be it. There's no relation because the relation is also energetic. The pointers is also it pointing; so in actuality, there are no real pointers only in appearance. What is, is appearing as a pointer.

What this is is a mystery and is unknowable because something outside of this would have to be present to know what this is. It's everything. There is no substance to nothing because that substance would also be it. One can say it's unconditional love because there are no conditions and it doesn't have a need or a purpose and those are conditional. It doesn't come from anywhere and doesn't go anywhere. It's magical and cannot be defined since it's boundless and free. 

[Princess Arabia]

7 minutes ago, cetus said:

@Princess Arabia They are not two. Self and other (reality) arise mutually.

 

It doesn't really arise, only appears to. There is already no separate self but that energy that's contracted arises within the body and it feels like a separate entity but it really isn't. Yes, there is no separate reality and a separate self but there can be a felt feeling as such. It's illusory.

[cetus]

@Princess ArabiaYea right. See my edit*

[Princess Arabia]

4 minutes ago, cetus said:

@Princess ArabiaYea right. See my edit*

Who or what said what, your comment? If that's what you mean, no one said that, it's talking happening. All there is appearing as someone talking or typing.

Edited Friday at 02:16 AM by Princess Arabia

[cetus]

1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:

Who or what said what, your comment? If that's what you mean, no one said that, it's talking happening. All there is appearing as someone talking.

That's exactly what I meant.

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, cetus said:

That's exactly what I meant.

Oh ok.

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, ExploringReality said:

What if our beliefs and definitions of these terms are relative to our interpretation of these terms and what they come to mean for us. Is it possible to go beyond appearances to Absolute Truth?

Of course, that's all we have to go by. Going beyond appearances would also be another appearance. Show me something that doesn't appear. There is no Absolute Truth, imo, because all there is is simply all there is and it's everything. It also appears as the idea of Absolute Truth. There's only the Absolute. EVERYTHING.

[ExploringReality]

@Princess Arabia

What is an appearance though? Like what is the appearance and perception of reality? What is the ultimate context of existence? And how can one be certain to know the Truth of Reality? Because by definition, our experience of reality is filtered through a very narrow bandwidth of the entire electromagnetic field, our sense apparatus for perceiving reality, our physiology and our psychology play a huge role in our construction of reality and meaning. 

Ok, experience is appearances, and appearances are Nothing, then what is Nothing? What is Isness itself? What is it?